From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: t.figa@samsung.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:46:03 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V2 06/10] clk/samsung: add support for pll2650xx In-Reply-To: <1389099548-14649-7-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> References: <1389099548-14649-1-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> <1389099548-14649-7-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> Message-ID: <52E1636B.70702@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Rahul, On 07.01.2014 13:59, Rahul Sharma wrote: > Add support for pll2650xx in samsung pll file. This pll variant > is close to pll36xx but uses CON2 registers instead of CON1. > > Aud_pll in Exynos5260 is pll2650xx and uses this code. > > Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma > --- > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c > index 08f85ae..35cbc60 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c > @@ -812,6 +812,101 @@ static const struct clk_ops samsung_pll2550xx_clk_min_ops = { > .recalc_rate = samsung_pll2550xx_recalc_rate, > }; > > +/* > + * PLL2650XX Clock Type > + */ > + > +/* Maximum lock time can be 3000 * PDIV cycles */ > +#define PLL2650XX_LOCK_FACTOR (3000) > + > +#define PLL2650XX_MDIV_SHIFT (9) > +#define PLL2650XX_PDIV_SHIFT (3) > +#define PLL2650XX_SDIV_SHIFT (0) > +#define PLL2650XX_KDIV_SHIFT (0) > +#define PLL2650XX_MDIV_MASK (0x1ff) > +#define PLL2650XX_PDIV_MASK (0x3f) > +#define PLL2650XX_SDIV_MASK (0x7) > +#define PLL2650XX_KDIV_MASK (0xffff) > +#define PLL2650XX_PLL_ENABLE_SHIFT (23) > +#define PLL2650XX_PLL_LOCKTIME_SHIFT (21) > +#define PLL2650XX_PLL_FOUTMASK_SHIFT (31) For single bit fields it would be better to use simple definitions, using BIT() macro, such as #define PLL2650XX_PLL_ENABLE BIT(23) and then using it with | or & ~ operators directly. Also there is no need for parentheses around simple integers. > + > +static unsigned long samsung_pll2650xx_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, > + unsigned long parent_rate) > +{ > + struct samsung_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw); > + u32 mdiv, pdiv, sdiv, pll_con0, pll_con2; > + s16 kdiv; > + u64 fvco = parent_rate; > + > + pll_con0 = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg); > + pll_con2 = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg + 8); > + mdiv = (pll_con0 >> PLL2650XX_MDIV_SHIFT) & PLL2650XX_MDIV_MASK; > + pdiv = (pll_con0 >> PLL2650XX_PDIV_SHIFT) & PLL2650XX_PDIV_MASK; > + sdiv = (pll_con0 >> PLL2650XX_SDIV_SHIFT) & PLL2650XX_SDIV_MASK; > + kdiv = (s16)(pll_con2 & PLL2650XX_KDIV_MASK); > + > + fvco *= (mdiv << 16) + kdiv; > + do_div(fvco, (pdiv << sdiv)); > + fvco >>= 16; > + > + return (unsigned long)fvco; > +} > + > +static int samsung_pll2650xx_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long drate, > + unsigned long parent_rate) > +{ > + struct samsung_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw); > + u32 tmp, pll_con0, pll_con2; > + const struct samsung_pll_rate_table *rate; > + > + rate = samsung_get_pll_settings(pll, drate); > + if (!rate) { > + pr_err("%s: Invalid rate : %lu for pll clk %s\n", __func__, > + drate, __clk_get_name(hw->clk)); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + pll_con0 = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg); > + pll_con2 = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg + 8); > + > + /* Change PLL PMS values */ > + pll_con0 &= ~(PLL2650XX_MDIV_MASK << PLL2650XX_MDIV_SHIFT | > + PLL2650XX_PDIV_MASK << PLL2650XX_PDIV_SHIFT | > + PLL2650XX_SDIV_MASK << PLL2650XX_SDIV_SHIFT); > + pll_con0 |= rate->mdiv << PLL2650XX_MDIV_SHIFT; > + pll_con0 |= rate->pdiv << PLL2650XX_PDIV_SHIFT; > + pll_con0 |= rate->sdiv << PLL2650XX_SDIV_SHIFT; > + pll_con0 |= 1 << PLL2650XX_PLL_ENABLE_SHIFT; > + pll_con0 |= 1 << PLL2650XX_PLL_FOUTMASK_SHIFT; > + > + pll_con2 &= ~(PLL2650XX_KDIV_MASK << PLL2650XX_KDIV_SHIFT); > + pll_con2 |= ((~(rate->kdiv) + 1) & PLL2650XX_KDIV_MASK) > + << PLL2650XX_KDIV_SHIFT; Huh? This looks suspiciously. Why KDIV needs to be negated and increased by 1? > + > + /* Set PLL lock time. */ > + __raw_writel(PLL2650XX_LOCK_FACTOR * rate->pdiv, pll->lock_reg); > + > + __raw_writel(pll_con0, pll->con_reg); > + __raw_writel(pll_con2, pll->con_reg + 8); > + > + do { > + tmp = __raw_readl(pll->con_reg); > + } while (!(tmp & (0x1 << PLL2650XX_PLL_LOCKTIME_SHIFT))); Is the right bit being checked here? On other PLLs it's 29th bit named LOCK_STAT. Could you confirm this? > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static const struct clk_ops samsung_pll2650xx_clk_ops = { > + .recalc_rate = samsung_pll2650xx_recalc_rate, > + .set_rate = samsung_pll2650xx_set_rate, > + .round_rate = samsung_pll_round_rate, > +}; > + > +static const struct clk_ops samsung_pll2650xx_clk_min_ops = { > + .recalc_rate = samsung_pll2650xx_recalc_rate, > +}; > + > static void __init _samsung_clk_register_pll(struct samsung_clk_provider *ctx, > struct samsung_pll_clock *pll_clk, > void __iomem *base) > @@ -895,6 +990,12 @@ static void __init _samsung_clk_register_pll(struct samsung_clk_provider *ctx, > else > init.ops = &samsung_pll2550xx_clk_ops; > break; > + case pll_2650xx: > + if (!pll->rate_table) > + init.ops = &samsung_pll2650xx_clk_min_ops; > + else > + init.ops = &samsung_pll2650xx_clk_ops; > + break; > default: > pr_warn("%s: Unknown pll type for pll clk %s\n", > __func__, pll_clk->name); > diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h > index e106470..b326e94 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h > +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ enum samsung_pll_type { > pll_6552, > pll_6553, > pll_2550xx, > + pll_2650xx, > }; > > #define PLL_35XX_RATE(_rate, _m, _p, _s) \ > @@ -93,5 +94,4 @@ struct samsung_pll_rate_table { > extern struct clk * __init samsung_clk_register_pll2550x(const char *name, > const char *pname, const void __iomem *reg_base, > const unsigned long offset); > - Not a part of this change. Best regards, Tomasz